Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
09-06-2002, 02:28 PM | #11 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,635
|
Quote:
You might also try: Rober Van Voorst, "Jesus Outside the New Testament." J.P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew, Vol. I." R.T. France, "The Evidence for Jesus." And, "Louis Feldman's article ("The State of the Question") in "Christological Perspectives." |
|
09-06-2002, 02:58 PM | #12 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Quote:
Full reference? I'd like to get this. Michael |
|
09-06-2002, 03:01 PM | #13 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
for ref:
<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000305" target="_blank">Kirby on the Testimonium Flavianum (1)</a> <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000466" target="_blank">Kriby on the Testimonium Flavanium (2) </a> (misspelled Kirby so its hard to find) <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000468" target="_blank">Kirby on the Testimonium Flavianum (3) </a> <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000525" target="_blank">Kirby on the Testimonium (4) </a> |
09-06-2002, 03:08 PM | #14 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,635
|
Quote:
|
|
09-06-2002, 08:54 PM | #15 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,877
|
Quote:
See, if we regard the TF as authentic, that just creates another set of questions. The ultimate strength of Doherty's case is in the whole, not in the individual pieces (not that they aren't pretty strong of themselves). I'm not saying that we should adopt the ahistoricist position simply because it resolves a whole raft of nagging questions--if Josephus is conclusively demonstrated to be authentic, then we have to deal with the questions that raises, like it or not. But again, I'm just not seeing a compelling case for authenticity. Gregg |
|
09-06-2002, 09:07 PM | #16 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
|
Gregg writes: not only do you have to satisfactorily resolve all the questions about Josephus--which you haven't, at least for me
Of course, in order for a partial Testimonium to serve as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, not only must the objections to authenticity be answered but a demonstration that it is reasonable to believe in authenticity must be forthcoming. Layman says that he will look at the arguments for authenticity of a partial Testimonium later, so we'll see what he comes up with. However, it is still interesting to attempt to determine how strong a case can be made for the utter spuriousness of the Ant. 18.3.3 passage. Were there any particular counter-arguments made by Layman that you found to be unsatisfactory in a way that I had not noted? Or can you add to the arguments for inauthenticity? Your feedback would be helpful to me and to everyone who has been following this dialogue. best, Peter Kirby |
09-07-2002, 04:51 AM | #17 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: St Louis area
Posts: 3,458
|
Quote:
|
|
09-07-2002, 08:33 AM | #18 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,872
|
Doherty's logic self-destructs IMO. He might have convinced me he was on to something if he had not taken an "end justifies the means" approach and swept so much previous scholarship under the rug with nothing more than gratuitous assertions. Doherty is simply dishonest and I don't wonder now why he can't get his degree. (Yeah I know. The poor iconoclast is so far ahead of his time, nobody will give him one).
Nevertheless, he has an original point (I think, although I am also beginning to wonder who he stole it from). I doubt the Christians can make a convincing case that there is no puzzle, or explain the lack of references to Jesus words. And I doubt skeptics can make any convincing case that Acts can be summarily thrown out of the equation. So what we have is a most interesting question, and no real answer other than our own beliefs would have us presume. As far as Josephus goes, he did not believe in Jesus, and he had plenty of reasons to be silent about what he knew. He doubtless knew and heard something more, but if he did not believe it, why would he say it? And why would someone wanting to please Christian persecutors (Jews and Romans alike) say anything? One could argue he was a brave soul for saying what he did. This is called an argument from reason, BTW Radorth |
09-07-2002, 09:47 AM | #19 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
What previous "scholarship" are you talking about? What evidence do you have of his dishonesty? I think you are the dishonest one. Doherty has stated that he got an undergraduate degree, but did not go on for a graduate degree and became a professional writer instead for personal reasons. There is no indication he has ever tried to get a PhD. Quote:
I don't know why you think Acts is uniquely relevant. Many Christian scholars date it to the second century, although there appear to be some more primitive parts to it. Quote:
The only reason people argue about Josephus is that the historical record is so barren of contemporary references to Jesus outside the Bible that the historicist case hangs by the bare threads of two references in Josephus, one of which has surely been tampered with, the other of which might have been. |
|||
09-07-2002, 09:49 AM | #20 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: PA USA
Posts: 5,039
|
Quote:
To quote Doherty: Quote:
That, however, would still leave unaddressed the large body of historical information that we do possess which makes no mention of such a person as an historical Jesus, and which when considered in connection with Paul's silence and other factors, including Josephus's scant remarks in light of such "missing" evidence, makes the mythicist's argument quite potent. joe |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|